re: So it turns out being gay is not in the DNA (Posted on 12/12/12 at 12:03 pm to Antonio Moss)

quote:You have pretty poor understanding of genetics.

Its clear that you dont know the difference between being born gay, and being gay as a result of external factors. Control the external factors (epigenetics) and you control the trait, as per my previous examples

Can obesity be controlled, even if passed on?

Can the honey bee's offspring traits be controlled by feeding?

Can diabetes in the offspring of the Sedish men that suffered conditions of famine be controlled, ven if passed on?

re: So it turns out being gay is not in the DNA (Posted on 12/12/12 at 12:07 pm to League Champs)

quote:Its clear that you dont know the difference between being born gay, and being gay as a result of external factors. Control the external factors (epigenetics) and you control the trait, as per my previous examples

Still not close to the correct definition of epigenetic. Second, what if the external factors are unknown and unknowable?

re: So it turns out being gay is not in the DNA (Posted on 12/12/12 at 12:46 pm to Patrick_Bateman)

quote:If homosexuality were genetic in nature, it would no longer be in existence, on account of the genes not being passed on from one generation to the next. It is a choice, always has been.

Not true on at least two levels. First, gay people can and do have children. Many try to wish away the gay by getting married and having kids (which may explode in their face, or they may hide it their entire life). Lesbians, of course, can have a child of their own with the help of either a sperm bank or a willing donor. It can and absolutely does happen.

Second, dominant vs recessive traits. It's not as simple as "If the son is gay, then the daddy must be gay." If that were true, then all gingers would have a ginger parent, and it simply isn't so. Nuff said.

Personally, I don't think there's one correct and all-explaining answer to this question. You might as well try to find a gene to explain why one person likes blondes and another brunettes. More than likely, it's probably a mixture of hardware and software.

re: So it turns out being gay is not in the DNA (Posted on 12/12/12 at 1:04 pm to League Champs)

The title of this thread is fallacious. A more accurate appellation would state that homosexuality isn't necessarily hereditary.

Genes control and regulate the expression of each other. If certain genes are present, and are activated, other genes may become activated...or suppressed. So, just because an actual nucleotide sequence may not be explicitly responsible for a given phenotype does not mean there isn't a genetic basis for its manifestation.

re: So it turns out being gay is not in the DNA (Posted on 12/12/12 at 1:55 pm to Antonio Moss)

quote:Although informal, this is a much closer definition of epigenetic than the OP

No, its not

quote:relating to, being, or involving a modification in gene expression that is independent of the DNA sequence of a gene

The human DNA is set to hetero as the default. This latest theory debunks the notion that it is genetic. Too many identical twins have varying sex habits, and gay would eventually evolve itself out if it was passed due only to genetics. So the result of being gay is the expression of that gene from its default due to external modifications from the parent.

Obesity is the perfect example of epigenetics. A trait that is passed due to behavior of the parent.

This study means being gay is a choice. The epigenetic trait is passed on, but external modification can effect your behavior. Much like obesity is passed on due to the amount of sugar that is now available in our diet. The Swedish famine study also confirms that diet choices by parents effect offspring, but is not genetic.

So you can choose to remain gay, because your ancestor somehow modified that default gene; or you can choose to modify that epigenetic factor.

Either way, its external forces at work. It boils down to a choice someone made at some point in your lineage.